NEW: Charter members have access to protocols and downloads (when applicable). Currently, this includes a free updated copy of the e-book "Upon a Clay Tablet", and a digital review copy of "Our Earth, Our Cure" (out of print)

...and I'm always open to review and add any "good science" to the list.

The two articles you posted are both examples of flawed science. At least, flawed when considering human and animal health, which is what is important when looking at therapeutic clay. Flawed science is usually the result of special interest, since scientists are usually pretty clever chaps.

For the cancer study, I'd LOVE to jump in and agree and then try using clays for gliomas (their example). This is great! Drink some clay water and apply some clay packs, right?

The problem is, this was in-vitro research. How exactly are they going to get clay particles to the treatment site, when the particle size of smectite is about ****4 times**** too large for absorption and bio-availability? The study shows A DIRECT CHEMICAL SURFACE REACTION is responsible for clay's "method of action". Smectite clays don't work that way in the body. The only reason I can think of for doing this study is to try to patent smaller smectite-like crystals that could be used as a part of a drug therapy.

You might find this surprising, and perhaps at first glance a bit "conspiracy theory" oriented, but it doesn't take too much research to uncover that drug companies have been studying clays for decades, with the sole purpose of trying to figure out how to grow patentable crystals in the lab to be used as drugs.

Studies like this are almost always done based on drug company funding, most often to try to patent synthetic clay particles for use in the drug industry. All that you have to do is follow the money and do patent searches. I have not done so with the cancer study authors.

But I HAVE DONE SO with the "Killer Clay" study, because it was confusing, based on the origin data that was responsible for the interest in clay's anti-infective ability.

Sadly, the "killer clays" study is text book point and case. This is the most disappointing of all studies, because initially, the idea behind the work showed such promise. The initial proof of concept study was great, and it was based upon the work of Thierry Brunet and his family's work done in Africa with Buruli ulcers.

Sadly, the secondary study was funded by a huge pharmaceutical grant for the sole purpose of generating patents. Luckily, most of their patents have been struck down one by one.

All that they did was show that acids are usually anti-microbial, and certain metal ions can kill pathogens, and that they found a clay that was acidic that was contaminated with these particular metal ions. Apple cider vinegar with some iodine would also have done a good job; the same exact thing. It didn't fool anyone looking at the study in relation to their patents.

Rather than look at their study, where they identified specific metal ions **in** clay responsible for clay's ability to kill microbes (they IGNORE the fact that the original clay used in Africa... French green illite by Argitez... did NOT kill the mycobacterium being studied), I recommend studying the following article:

...which shows the real methods of action on how "therapeutic grade clay is a non-toxic, pro-life, anti-infective bio-terrain modulating crystalline colloidal mineral with strong powers of sorption". I updated this article after the release of the killer clay study so that those researchers interested in truth about clay can find the information they need.

If anyone is interested in going into more depth with the "Killer Clay" study, I'd certainly be willing to dig into the nuts and bolts (I originally had to go through the entire study in some depth to understand it), but I'd rather spend my time supporting great research, ideas, science, and practices, as apposed to being "the clay police".

One of the themes of "EarthCures" is "Where good science meets wise traditions".

Having to use the term "good science" is a deep sadness for me. All science should be good... by definition!

...but it is not. Greed, special interest, and politics, it turns out, can ruin almost anything.

This is why I view the idea of a not-for-profit Foundation as important.

You can't trust the clay sales people to provide the truth (they all jumped on the bandwagon and sang the praises of the "Killer Clay" study without taking the time to understand it). You can't trust the government agencies like the AMA or the FDA. Now, you can't trust the university scientists... it turns out (I learned the hard way), you can't even blindly trust LABS to know their stuff and do their jobs correctly.

You have to find those people that actually CARE about human beings, animals, and the truth itself. I didn't use to think that this was rare, but in this day and age, it is getting rarer!

I was raised to trust blindly those in authority... Drs, police, government. With that naive mentality, those in authority (not all)used it to further gain in what seems to be endless personal, monetary, business ways. So much information is thrown out to us, what/who do we believe? I see the public pushing away from that blind trust buts its hard when one is bombarded from all side. I believe what I see... clay is efficient for many issues or just staying ahead of the health curve. You're on a great mission Jason, stay the course. Off my soapbox